>>3946550Things I took away from that article
>So I look at our data to see about sample variation, and to look at the MTF curvesHe trusts his mtf results.
>It’s done at infinityThe sigma results would likely be even higher if measurements were done at their optimal distance
>If you speak MTF, then you get more information than you would out of Imatest The data is designed for people that understand what they're looking at ;)
>They may have the best copy out of 20, or the worst. Trust me on this. There’s a reason I will no longer publish ANY single lens performance dataThere's no "golden sample" bullshit from the sigma. The lenstip Fuji single sample was sent by Fuji themselves for review purposes.
>Did that center measurement average horizontal and vertical, or just give the higher of the two?It's likely the Fuji measurements are a best case scenario for each data point.
>The trouble is it’s fairly worthless right around release time. Fanboys and trolls dominate these discussionsYou're probably a fanboy or a troll
>Outright ‘cease and desists’ occur, although rarely (yes, I’ve gotten a couple). More often there is a discussion about why the manufacturer disagrees with something an R/T said.Ah, that's why objective Fuji reviews are missing online, and why dxo pulled their Fuji lens tests then. Fuji don't want people to see how bad their lenses are, especially if they couldn't send out a perfect sample to someone they have a working relationship with.
Thanks for the support, and showing that even though the sigma absolutely slaps that Fuji, the Fuji is probably even worse in reality.
